No gods or kings, only man (alone) or the myth of Ayn Rand's inverted Marxism

When you don't understand something - read it a second time , if you still don't understand it - read it several times until you get it . And if even then you don't - start criticizing what you didn't understand or, at best, the little that you did understand.

This article is a response to the review of Ayn Rand's philosophy in "The Fountainhead" published by Terminal 3 here.

To begin with, it is important to note that it is not clear from this text what exactly is being criticized - the film based on Ayn Rand's work or the "brick book".

The expectation is obviously for the characters to develop and their content to be something more than moral-philosophical views. It would probably have been better if an example had been given of what a character actually should "be" about, besides what he believes in and what motivates his actions in the development of the plot. The criticism seems to claim that if there had been more small talk like that of mediocre people who do not burden themselves with much brain activity and avoid philosophical reasoning, the novel would have been a complete masterpiece.

One wonders why this weak epic about people limited to their own understandings of the world and how many comical things they want to do has such a cult status – under which it should have been specified that the main character – Howard Roark, is someone who refuses to do what everyone else does – to imitate, to follow, what the limitations of the human imagination have seen so far, in order to be praised as an unattainable talent.

What are Ayn Rand's characters?

The characters are "completed as characters and therefore flat," critics claim, unlike truly epic novels, where the characters develop and reach heroic altruism, for which they sacrifice themselves for the mass stupidity of people. Although I personally do not support the thesis that they are complete, if we assume that this is indeed the case, then they are such in order to develop the situation, not the situation to develop them.

They don't drift along to become like everyone else, but through their "complete character" they change the way things happen in the world around them. They drive the plot, not the other way around. Roark is persuaded to adopt a certain style of design and therefore cannot be an architect. No matter whether he has the ability and talent.

It is absurd to claim that “The Source” is a “production novel”, the purpose of which is to reduce everything to labor and “implementation of the plan”. Obviously, the author of the criticism has quite heavy memories from before 1989, to refract the book through the limited prism of planning under socialism. The characters do not work to be loyal to the “party”, but to be loyal to themselves and what they want to achieve as a change in the world around them. And of course, because they are in an environment of “selfless” hyenas, waiting for a person to self-destruct and betray their values, in order to achieve something, following the universal, strongly put, “thought”, in order to be recognized as capable in what they want to do.

The hero is looking for not just a job, but the realization of his vision for the world

In the book, the person is not reduced to how well someone works and carries out the plan. This is where the “logic” of the reasoning in the review falls into its own trap. If that were the case, in the simplest and most logical sense, Roark would be looking for any job without any value considerations. Just a few paragraphs further down in the article it is stated that he, I quote, “makes no effort to look for work himself, but waits for work to look for him”. This is absolutely untrue – Roark is actually looking for work, which, however, does not set him rules by which he “like a machine” should follow the outdated “genius architectural standards”, because he has his own worldviews on how to do something without copying someone else’s greatness.

He simply does not want to and cannot live according to the unconscious, readily accepted understandings of others and what the one-headed audience considers modern.

Another flaw in the logic of the criticism – it is said that the characters do not communicate like “ordinary people with short phrases and sentences”, but with “lessons in philosophy”. And then the text claims that “the characters work because they cannot and do not want to express themselves and communicate with the society around them in any other way”. The main character in the book does not boil with a desire to express himself through empty talk, he does it through the work he does – he has no time to think about what others think of him, because he does not need to when he is single-minded in the principles he follows.

As he himself says in his speech in court –back in timeThere is always one person who takes the first step on the untrodden path, doing so with nothing but their own views; what all these people have in common is that they have a view that is not borrowed from others, and the typical response they receive from the latter is hatred. Everything new is rejected and hated because it is unknown and not well received.

Success does not depend on qualifications, but on your achievements.

The main character's obsession is even criticized as an expression of his choice to "complete a coursework assignment at the university" and the great tragedy is that he never manages to get a diploma. According to the author of the article, this is bad because he works as a "draftsman for other people's assignments, who painfully has to earn authority and clients". Here comes the moment when it should be noted that one piece of paper called a "university diploma" does not make you capable in practice.

Being familiar with all the historical architectural styles does not make you a good architect. Not completing your coursework does not end your brilliant career. A degree is nothing in itself if you cannot demonstrate your abilities in practice. And if a degree were actually a guarantee of a job, then this means that the novel would end with Roark as the embodiment of the phrase “Learn so that you do not become like him”. However, at the end of “The Fountainhead”, the situation is quite far from this… But of course, according to everyone’s individual understanding of success.

According to the critics, the notion that Roark “has clients to work with, not works to have clients” is evidence that he despises the art of selling himself. I agree with the latter, but my personal interpretation of the reason for his contempt is that if what he does is good enough, he will only sell himself. It continues with some confusing mix of criticism, jumping from the book to the film and the actors in the roles.

The attempt to analyze Roark's sex/love life is a cursory and psychologically limited view. It is limited to think that only what you see as right and accept as right is right and nothing else exists. Roark and Dominic Francon do not love each other through possession of each other, resembling the possession of a thing, but for themselves as individuals. Perhaps it is also the fact that they are rare through their views on others that they are attracted to. It is more a game of surrender for something/someone that is/who is really worth it, rather than a desperate search for someone to love because she is too desperate and ready to surrender to anyone.

The ambitious individualist versus the sheepish crowd

The plot is not based on how "weak-hearted people....combine to bring down talented workaholics", but on the parasitism that is sustained by the latter accused. Ultimately, if a little amateur psychology is introduced here, weak people, those who have nothing to offer, but wish to have more, always unite because they themselves know that each one separately from the common is compressed air. All this is done under the guise of altruism, which is more easily swallowed by the ego of an individual confident in himself and his abilities, following nothing but his personal beliefs and abilities.

Altruism breeds solidarity with the empty-headed and stupid, while the ego of the able is perceived as bad because it is not shared or because others do not have his abilities and are afraid of it. The manipulator-journalist is in an ideal position to guide the empty-headed masses of people incapable of individual thought. And he and his puppets do not prefer just money, but fame. When they have fame, the money comes.

The human will is capable of conquering any obstacle.

Rand's true hero perceives nature as something that can be overcome, because it is man who can climb the highest peak and swim the deepest ocean. In most cases, not alone, of course. With the help of what his thought and imagination have given birth to, so that he can make every difficulty surmountable, not for the sake of a bright future. Monetary-commodity relations are far from the main value - quite the opposite. Roark is persuaded to start building buildings that appeal to the masses and to give up his ideals, and in return he will become rich, famous, admired, and part of them.

The claim that this is a religion and everything is predetermined is also limited. The meaning of the power of human will of the one who has it (and wants to have it, of course) was obviously not understood. If everything ended with “I can’t draw buildings – I won’t do it” – then Peter Keating would not have participated in the plot of the religious writing at all, the same goes for “People don’t want me because I’m different – I’m stopping drawing” in relation to Roark.

If it were Marxism in reverse, as the criticism claims, Roark and everyone like him would be fighting against the people themselves – or those described as the working class, which thesis is too absurd. Roark is fighting for his own cause, not against someone else’s. Rather, the opposition is between the general and the individual against the backdrop of “the world perishing from the orgy of self-sacrifice.” Because when you can and know what you want, you don’t criticize people in order to elevate it into a limited public opinion, but simply act and do what you can best and want most. Only in this way are you useful not only to yourself, but also to everyone else.

Image source: Pinterest.com, Liberty.me

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!